Arthur Goldberg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court: “As we look forward to celebrate the bicentennial of the constitution, a few people have asked, why not another constitutional convention. I would respond that one of the most serious problems Article 5 poses is a runaway convention. There is no enforceable mechanism to prevent a convention from reporting wholesale changes to our constitution and Bill of Rights. Moreover, the absence of any mechanism to ensure representative selection of delegates could put a runaway convention in the hands of single issue groups whose self-interest may be contrary to our national well- being.”

Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no way to limit or muzzle the actions of a constitutional convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a Convention begins it will be too late to stop the convention if we do not like its agenda.”

“Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new constitutional convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new convention could plunge our nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn with no focus on the subject needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional convention. And I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence.”

I. How would LR6 change the U.S. Constitution?LR6 is an application to Congress from Nebraska for Congress to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution to propose amendments, supposedly to limit the federal government. When Congress determines they have received 34 state applications, they are to call a convention; four states have passed “Convention of States”-sponsored applications to date.

“Convention of States Project (COS),” the sponsors of LR6, claim that the federal government has usurped the legitimate role of the States in the Constitution. They claim there are two Constitutions, the one we all know and love; and the one we are living under, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

But this shows that the problem is not the Constitution; but that the Supreme Court violates it! In Federalist No 81 (8th paragraph), Hamilton says the remedy for federal judges who usurp power is to impeach them and remove them from the bench!

If the existing words are clear but the Supreme Court Opinions are wrong, how exactly would the Delegates to an Article V Convention change those words? Or how would amendments restore the "true" meaning of the Constitution: by expressly overturning the Supreme Court that "got it wrong"? And why would the courts comply with an amended Constitution when they twist definitions to avoid complying with the Constitution we have now?

By Judi CalerRita Dunaway, staff counsel for the Convention of States Project ( COS), wrote an article, Five Myths about Article Five, which turns the Constitution on its ear. Ironically, her article challenges five premises that are true, while invoking at least nine myths of her own.

In fact, the very name "convention of states;' is being used by Article V convention advocates to deceive state legislators into thinking an Article V convention can be controlled by state legislatures; it cannot.